Any society or nation is always going through a churn. New set of issues and
opportunities exist before a society or nation and it is upto each
individual society or nation to deal with particular situation.
Bringing about any visible change and influencing a society requires lot of
commitment. Dealing with society requires dealing with individuals and
different opinions due to the nature of different individuals. A business
tycoon is in a strong position to invest in terms of finances since most of
the activities require lot of money inflow. E.g. a society is facing health
problems and the only way to solve it is to provide advanced vaccines. With
financial commitment from a business tycoon, this is easily achievable
although it might not be feasible for a political party or government
official to achieve the same task due to the huge financial requirements.
Another point to be kept into consideration is that strong motivation and
strong will can also bring about the necessary changes in the society. Take
example of Mahatma Gandhi who did not require the finances of a business
tycoon to lead a vast country like India to independence. If something is
meant for the benefit of society, it can be achieved with pure commitment
and hard work.
It is also possible that the business tycoon might have hidden or vested
interest to increase his business. This might lead to a situation where he
or she promotes certain activities which though beneficial to the society in
some form but more beneficial to his business. For example, a businessman
might promote certain sports due to extensive reach of the matches and thus
bringing better returns on advertizement.
The infrastructure of govt or political leaders might give a better
perspective to any issue at hand and reaching the masses. If education is
needed in the society, govt. might have better information and no vested
interest to provide education. Of course, this assumes that govt. and
leaders are not corrupt. They are doing this for the interest of the
soecity.
Another issue could be related to the continuity of the change. In case of
tycoon, once the person is out of the business, the successors might not be
willing to support the initiative while in case of govt or political
leaders, there is a framework which could ensure some sort of continuity to
the whole initiative.
Keeping above into consideration, it can be concluded that a better model
might be a collaborative model where business partners with govt. and
political leaders so that the advantages of both the parties can be taken to
bring about any change in the society or nation. For example, govt could
provide knowhow on education facilities and use existing data to decide
different kind of schools, etc. and businessman could fund the activities.

Subject: A powerful business tycoon is in a better position to influence the destiny of a

Destiny of a nation is shaped by the changes in policies and fundamental
principles governing the society. Business is done for profit and so lacks
the morality to influnce the policies in positive way sacrificing its own
benefits. For this very reason it is not accepible by the people also. Hence
a powerful business tycoon is not in better position to influnce the destiny
of a nation than a politician or burocrate. Let me present some examples to
justify my opinion.
Businesss is shaped by the policies of the country. It is done for profit
and business tycoon will always be looking for favourable policies to get
advantage. This is seen by pre budget clamouring and lobbying of big
bussiness houses in almost all the countries.
Business tycoons can create jobs but can not make the socities which
requires the better understanding of the social needs and cultural aspects
of the country. Obviously buerocrates and policians are better suited for
this.
As already said, business is shaped by the policies of the country. For
example, the emergence of Indian MNCs and information technology sector in
India is the result opening of economy by the government( in fact, Dr.
Manmohan Sing, the then finance minister)preceded by the introduction of
computers by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi during his tenure as prime minister.
Also, business tycoon sometimes do not understand the political dynamics of
the country and end up leaving the process in the mid way without owning the
responsibility for the same. For example N.R. Narayan Murthi was made
chairman of Banglore development authority for successful execution of the
project but ended up resigning from the post making some allegations.
I agree that sometimes they influence the policies and the future of the
country but only for their benefit which is often deprecated by the masses.
Thus we see that politicians and bureaucrates are in better position to
influnce the destiny of the nation than business leaders.

I disagree with the statement that a business tycoon is in a better position
to influence the destiny of a country or society.
A tycoon’s scope is very narrow. He rose to prominence by doing business.
He does not have much influence on society. Change/innovation in product,
procedure and competition in market place are the things that tycoon can
influence. But social changes, is outside the ring of influence of a tycoon.
His time and energy is directed to build the business empire not build a
viable social structure. A social worker or a politician fights for change
in social structure to make it even better. Tycoon can have monetary power,
but monetary power can hardly influence the society and normal person on the
street. However, a politician can bring in social changes and he can change
the course of direction of a country. A tycoon’s aim has always been to
make profit and value for investment which are not something that can
influence the destiny of a society or country.
Even if we talk about the market policies, a tycoon can influence only a
fraction. It’s always clear to everybody that a tycoon’s interest is not
people rather it’s profit. Tycoon will always try to side with regulation
that will benefit him, not the society. In larger context tycoons can’t
run the show as they won’t have popular support. But a leader can be in a
neutral position. He might not be an economist to chalk the economic
destination of a country but he can influence the general population. With
the help of a bunch of economists, a politician can give a blue print to the
country for its economic future. A politician takes into consideration the
demographic divide, socio-economic dynamics of country, world political
situation and a lot more. But all that a tycoon can think of, is to make
profit which at the end of the day won’t go down well with most of the
general public.
Example of political influence is India’s liberalization. It was not
chalked by any tycoon. It was done by economists and politicians. Once
politician decide upon a prudent direction, taking into consideration all
aspects, it is executed by the government officials. So politician gives a
direction to the country and it’s the country’s destiny. Nelson Mandela
and Mahatma Gandhi are not tycoons. But they change the course of their
respective country. By turning a history book we can find thousands of
examples where a leaders have influenced the destiny of a country, be it in
positive or negative direction. Saddam Hussein and Hitler bought doom but
Gandhi and Mandela bought democracy and prosperity.
World’s most influential nation is US and world’s richest man is Bill
Gates. If analyze how much influence he has on US politics (read destiny of
US), the answer would be virtually nil. Bill might have changed the way we
do business by ushering efficient personal computer, but how far has he
changed the course of US is anybody’s guess. Welfare of country and
society has never been driven by profiteering principle. Politician and
officials give a playing field for the business man to play in a controlled
manner with rules and regulation. So at the end of the day destiny of a
country is driven by the vision of politicians and officials.

It is an unfortunate truth that money has come to be the crux of total
influence in this country rather than government or political leadership.
Business leaders are able to control almost every facet of a country's
infrastructure, be it the financial, political, or even the socio-economic
components of modern nations.
Large mega-corporations, and their founders, control vast enterprises that
own exorbitant amounts of assets and wealth. The oligarchs who found and run
these companies possess the inherent ability to impact complex national
economic systems. For instance, Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world
and leader of the auspicious Bershire Hathaway holds a vast balance sheet
that effects almost every major corporation in the United States today. He
holds minority positions in many companies and his daily activities gives
him an extremely disproportionate sway on how the market functions. His
financial acumen is generally agreed upon as unmatched and many a financial
expert bases their decisions and actions on his positions.
Alternatively, the starters of the major newspapers in America are extremely
wealthy people that are afforded a considerable amount of political
influence through what they publish. With the exception of possibly the
internet, the media is an unequaled resource of information. Through what
the owners of these media companies publish political decisions are
impacted, and a political mistep of any kind can be exploited. As a result,
decisions that effect the security, stability, and financial well-being of a
nation can always be measured in how the media chooses to characterize them.
Many political and business leaders second guess and often times base their
choices directly on how they could possibly be discussed in media outlets.
Finally, the "social mobility" and meritocratic characteristics of many
nations are significantly influenced by business leaders. Consider that
education has a disproportionate - however justified - effect on how many
citizens are able to increase their position in society. However, political
connections to powerful business leaders affords many people the opportunity
to circumvent the traditional requirements to attain high-paying jobs. In
addition, many business leaders are themselves graduates of the most
academically respected universities. Harvard, Yale, and MIT graduates have
an significant advantage in attaining higher paying jobs at companies that
are structured with a plethora of Ivy League Alumni. This singular example
shows the cutthroat nature of Academia and how being accepted and graduating
from these schools is a carte blanche to gaining wealthier status.
So, though democracies are founded on the principles of government
maintaining and influencing the impact of everyday lives. The inherent
"freedom" that is attached to these political systems, or even the lack of
freedom in non-democratic societies is more often than not overshadowed by
money and big business owners.